Scaling-up Community Carbon Projects A roadmap - Plan Vivo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summary and conclusions The following table summarises the key barriers identified to scaling-up community carbon projects, and potential actions and collaborative efforts that may effectively address challenges: Barrier Institutional barriers · Uncertain or unclear land-tenure · Lack of national policies/frameworks for community forest management · Poor local governance, corruption · Lack of national data e.g. remote sensing data on current land-use · Lack of coordination between government agencies and projects · Poor institutional capacity Technical barriers · Project managers lack technical capacity to apply methodologies and carry out technical work required · Complex methodologies for carbon quantification, particularly for soil carbon · Over-reliance on foreign consultancy · Technical complexity of measuring and monitoring forest degradation · Lack of simple risk management tools for community-level projects Community-level barriers · Poor organisational capacity and ability to mobilise, particularly in very poor areas · Over-expectations of communities · Cultural barriers e.g. poor participation of women · Remoteness and poor infrastructure · Low education and literacy levels · High transaction costs of engaging many small-scale participants Actions recommended · Lobbying and supporting governments to develop better records of land title and land-use, e.g. through developing local level databases · Transparent record keeping and use of external bodies for certification and verification to promote transparency · Project managers adopting long-term strategies to scale-up existing projects · Building national and regional networks of technical expertise in land-use and carbon · Designing audit procedures to build technical capacity in-country and in-project, e.g. use of local reviewers · Utilising forums for knowledge and lesson sharing between organisations · Development of flexible, simple methodologies · Evolving standards towards ‘layered approaches’ so projects can get going and improve incrementally · Investing time in community engagement and training to foster clear understanding of project objectives and activities · Creating incentives for communities to stay in the project long-term e.g. offering training relevant to livelihood activities · Working with existing organised groups, using standardised procedures · Devolving activities e.g. monitoring into communities to build capacity and reduce costs 20
Barriers related to standards · Standards may not recognise or do not provide sufficient guidance and tools for avoided deforestation and forest degradation activities · A lack of simple, standardised methodologies and tools for measuring socio-economic and biodiversity impacts of projects, important for differentiating community carbon projects · Standards which focus on community-led projects, may have poor visibility in the market, or are poorly understood, leading to confusion and market uncertainties Market barriers · Communities, and NGOs lack marketing strategies and capacity to negotiate · Projects lack market information due to remoteness, leading to imbalances of power · Uncertainty of future demand · Long-term nature of delivery of forest carbon services ties in poorly with demand for ex-post credits · Misperceptions of the levels of risk involved in forest carbon · Uncertainty about how the regulatory market is going to develop, particularly the development of a mechanism for Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) Financial barriers · Uncertainties about project development costs and lack of information about development costs can act as a deterrent to potential project developers and investors. · High transaction and opportunity costs are often associated with land-use projects working with multiple participants. · Funding models used may not always promote equitable distribution of benefits and ensure payments reach the grassroots level, which is essential to ensure participants are empowered and incentivised to participate in the longterm. · Implementing better marketing strategies, where standards are clearly differentiated for their community focus · Providing better tools for measuring and demonstrating co-benefits · Lobbying for recognition of the importance of including communities in actions to address forest degradation · Supplementing standards with guidance for project developers on how to scale-up activities · Targeting high profile companies and institutions for endorsement · Set-up a platform that provides clear, objective information on the applicability of different standards · Creating platforms to communicate project benefits and access markets, and utilising existing information portals such as the Forest Carbon Portal or United Bank of Carbon. · Pursuing strategic partnerships with actors with better market access and marketing capacity. · Developing flexible business models at project level, seeking co-funding from philanthropic and development funding sources. · Making better use of media to promote the benefits of their project, such as video and internet blogs. · Disbursing project information particularly about scale if impacts already achieved, to combat misperceptions that community carbon projects are small-scale and a niche market · Targeting high profile buyers that will increase visibility · Developing a targeted ‘community carbon fund’ to stimulate new projects and project expansion, tools and methodologies. This could take the form of a hedge fund, containing blended sources of capital · Providing more information on typical start-up costs and cost breakdowns to increase information available for potential investors. · Aggregating projects, move towards scheme-based approaches · Working with existing groups and community structures (e.g. farmers cooperatives) · Standards could collaborate to set-up and maintain an information portal for sources of project start-up funding · Capturing the diversity of funding sources available, including development funding 21
Page 1 and 2: Scaling-up Community Carbon Project
Page 3 and 4: Executive Summary Around a third of
Page 5 and 6: · Projects lack market information
Page 7 and 8: What is ‘community carbon’ and
Page 9 and 10: Aims and objectives of the workshop
Page 11 and 12: scaling-up to regional and national
Page 13 and 14: · Standards should develop and fac
Page 15 and 16: community in order to start-up a pr
Page 17 and 18: equired in the first years of proje
Page 19: · Transactions costs may be reduce
Page 23 and 24: provide ongoing support as a charit
Page 25 and 26: Appendix 1: Workshop Working Groups
Page 27 and 28: Appendix 3: List of delegates Name
Page 29 and 30: Samuel Nnah Centre pour l’Environ
Page 31 and 32: Jose Chuc Roberto Pacheco (CARE Gua
Page 33 and 34: Day Three: 14 th October 09:00 - 09

Scaling-up Community Carbon Projects A roadmap - Plan Vivo

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?